Help please

jessewillow

Hi

I'm new hear and don't know if this is the right place to post this.

I would be very grateful if anyone would give their opinion on the following, the names are ficticious.
A number of parties lent a sum of money to George to buy a property
Bob lent 52 ½% Harry 19 ½%

To make the story as short as possible, a conman tried to take ownership of the property and a very long and stressful legal battle began and eventually the conman lost.

Thanks, and apologies if I've posted in the wrong forum

Bob paid an additional 70K in legal fees (which he will not retrive ) in goodwill to fund all parties during this lawsuit (party two did not have the funds at the time to contribute).
If this money had not been raised by Bob (who is now financially embarrassed) the property would have been lost and both Bob and Harry would have lost all their money.

The property was then sold on goodwill and the purchaser is paying for the property in equal instalments to Bob and Harry.
The dispute is that Harry, although he did not contribute to the legal fees and refuses to contribute even a small amount out of his repayments from the sale is insisting that he should receive the same amount in instalments as Bob.
To date, Bob has received 17% of his loan and Harry 46 %

The question is :
A: Is this fair
B: Should Bob be the sole receiver of the repayment until his percentage of repayment is equal to Harry’s
C: Should both parties receive equal amounts

arcon5

Wouldn't the sale of the property be independent to the legal fees?

Can legal fees be recovered from the loosing party?

Was anything agreed regarding the legal fees at the time? And if so, do you have anything in writing? If no, does the other party agree or deny agreeing to this?

This seems to be quite specialist stuff tbh, probably outside the scope of a free forum.

jessewillow

Nothing was agreed re the legal fees, they were paid on goodwill and trust. The losing party had no funds to pay court costs.
Many thanks for taking the time to reply

arcon5

Was it a joint action? Who was named on official papers?

bris

Legal fees aside, which is a different matter that Bob could sue Harry for, the split would be the same as agreed at the time of purchase.

So if it was a 50/50 split before it should be again.

I am of course assuming that the 51 and a half % and the 19 and a half % are payable back to both parties before the split.

jessewillow

Thank you for your reply
The loans were from family members to a company they were not partners in. The company sold the premises and the new purchasers are paying monthly instalments to the family members who initially lent the money. I don't think I'm making much sense but this is not a legal matter just a personal question about fairness. Here is probably not the place to ask the question, but I didn't know where else to get advice, there are no contracts to argue over unfortunately it was all stupidly done on trust.
Thank you so much for taking the time, I appreciate your replies so say the purchaser is paying 2k per month do you think that it should be split evenly between the two or pro rata (loan percentage) ?

bris

I would say pro rata is the fairest way. But I suppose from harry's point of view he wants his money back as quick as possible too.

I take it that once Harry's 19 and a half percent are paid back then he would stop getting payments and the rest to Bob?

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

BoP will now interrupt for the hard of reading.

Grandad had a business, and four sons.
Grandad died George took over business. But had to loan monies off Bob and Harry to do so.

Fourth son got wind and issued legal proceedings

This cost Bob £70,000.

Questions
Is this fair. No. But then again is anything.
Should payments be equal percentage wise.why, are there shares in the business! Probably not!

Should both parties receive equal amounts. Well, with no share dividend, there is no other option!